Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 363, Sowing The Seeds Through Science And Engineering Research Act

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 363, SOWING THE SEEDS THROUGH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH ACT -- (House of Representatives - April 24, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, it is vital that the United States continue to grow more globally competitive in the areas of scientific research and technology. Federal and private investment in supporting research and development is essential to the health of our economy and our competitiveness as a Nation. We must plan for the future by investing in areas of basic research and science today.

The underlying bill, H.R. 363, reaffirms our Federal commitment to increase America's global competitiveness in the areas of science, technology, research and innovation by supporting America's future scientific leaders.

The central Washington area that I represent is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab in Richland, a state-of-the-art research facility. The PNNL hosts a diverse staff of outstanding scientists, engineers and support professionals. Many of these individuals in the past have received the highest levels of recognition for outstanding achievements and discoveries in their field.

At this lab, researchers use their expertise in the fields of environmental, radiological, biological and computational sciences to make important contributions to the scientific advancement of our Nation. The development of fuel cell technologies, biomass systems and radiation portal monitors are just a few of the areas where lab researchers are leading efforts to solve our national security and energy security challenges.

I am pleased that this legislation includes efforts to help encourage collaborations between scientists and national labs. Specifically, this legislation allows the National Science Foundation grants to be used in collaboration with our national labs, which means more researchers at our labs will be eligible for Federal support.

Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support, and this rule makes in order all amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. However, Madam Speaker, I question the need once again for a structured rule when an open rule could have been granted for consideration of this bill.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that this is a structured rule and, therefore, Members cannot come down to the floor and ask for amendments to be made in order.

But I just want to make this point, and we talk about it a lot in the Rules Committee. A lot of these bills have strong bipartisan support, and, yes, there may or may not be Members that are clamoring for amendments. But it would just seem to me to keep the process in a way where all Members, if they desire, should have an opportunity to come down because maybe something was said in debate, maybe a point that was made that was overlooked, to at least have the opportunity to change. When bills have strong bipartisan support, that is probably the best time to have an open rule.

I respectfully tell my friend that there has been a change in definition of what open rules are. We could probably discuss that further because you have not had the open rules that we have had based on everybody having an opportunity.

I would just simply say that bills like this, if you are going to have them on the floor under the regular order of a rule, then it should be an open rule. Otherwise, it seems to me that it should be on a Suspension Calendar, like we pass so many pieces of our legislation.

That is just simply the point I am making. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. CARDOZA. Reclaiming my time, I acknowledge this is not an open rule, this is a structured rule. That is what we put forward. In the 12 or 14 years that the current minority was in power, we saw a declining, ever-declining number of what he considers an open rule.

As I said before, we granted every amendment that came forward in the
last two bills. Certainly that is in the spirit of cooperation that we bring this legislation to the House floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this is a very good bill. It's a bill that has been worked on in the past Congress, and, obviously, in this Congress. It has strong bipartisan support, and all of the points that my friend from New York made in his previous remarks, I would like to associate myself with them. We need that.

It just seems to me that during their whole process, when you have strong bipartisan support, under the rules of the House, all Members ought to have an opportunity to have some say in legislation as important as this that comes to the floor of the House, and not just those members within the committee of jurisdiction.

I am simply pointing that out. It is a promise that was made by the new majority in the last election. I will withhold judgment, obviously, until after this first session is over to see if, in fact, those promises were kept. But as we go along here, seeing structured rules on bills that could very well be on a Suspension Calendar, I just think it's another opportunity missed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source